Evidence from UK's National Crime Agency 'critical' in sentencing Koh Tao killers to death

[DiscoDan]

DiscoDan, on 20 Feb 2016 - 17:46, said:

Khun Han, on 20 Feb 2016 - 17:26, said:

Didn't someone with a fixation on discrediting Andy Hall get banned not too long ago?

It was most probably one of the activists who has turned on him could also be Ian Yarwood as he has had an open letter published on various social media that is critical of AH even though he was not the one making the decisions

Pull the other one, DiscoDan

Plenty evidence of the above I have kept loads of screenshots of the activists attacking AH on FB and copies of Ian Yarwood letter, looks like even his closest friends have turned on him. but they choose to ignore the fact Andy was not making the decisions Robert Holmes confirmed this. According to Ian's letter he was also denied using a Rohingya witness by the Burmese government.

[stephenterry]

snip

A partial list of clues which were not mentioned at the trial, so we assume the judge didn't hear or know about them. . . . . .

>>> phone records,

>>> bottle, Hannah's clothes (including undies), white shorts, phone found at crime scene

>>> Nok Airways manifest/CCTV, records from phone companies re; call histories

>>> places near crime scene where laundry gets done, including sinks

>>> Mon's room, Nomsod's room (were they even checked forensically?)

>>> transfer of money or valuables from people connected to the headman - to top brass officials.

>>> recordings of transcripts of interrogations with Mon. .....with interrogations at 'safe house.'

>>> 59.9 hours of CCTV

.....the list goes on and on.....

Did the defence team bring any of this up? Surely, if these things were crucial to the case then why didn't they bring it to the attention of the judge instead of using the gait analysis fiasco that seems to prove nothing and then having to pass on their 'killer' DNA evidence mishandling aspect once they had established that it didn't help their cause because the prosecutions use of the DNA evidence 'trumped' everything else.

Trouble is, there wasn't any DNA evidence. Oh, unless you believe the RTP's claim that there was. Hey, it was all written down on a piece of paper, with alterations and crossing outs. Must be true.

I refer you to Smedly's posts (including the rationale not acceptable by the defence) where he quite clearly states what evidence should have been presented to court to make it admissible. And had the B2 been guilty, I have no doubt the RTP would have provided such evidence that could be verified, substantiated, and validated. As it was not, I have little doubt that the B2 were not the culprits, but convenient scapegoats.

I have my own theories regarding what was not questioned by the defence, but as that goes into Thai psyche, and beyond, this is not the forum to discuss such matters.

[DiscoDan]

Trouble is, there wasn't any DNA evidence. Oh, unless you believe the RTP's claim that there was. Hey, it was all written down on a piece of paper, with alterations and crossing outs. Must be true.

I refer you to Smedly's posts (including the rationale not acceptable by the defence) where he quite clearly states what evidence should have been presented to court to make it admissible. And had the B2 been guilty, I have no doubt the RTP would have provided such evidence that could be verified, substantiated, and validated. As it was not, I have little doubt that the B2 were not the culprits, but convenient scapegoats.

I have my own theories regarding what was not questioned by the defence, but as that goes into Thai psyche, and beyond, this is not the forum to discuss such matters.

There is evidence its in the rape kit that the defense declined to retest.

[AleG]

According to AleG, Chris Ware or someone else left it in David's bag . Like you do. A 30,000 Baht iphone's just a disposable item like an empty box of matches or snack wrapper, isn't it?

maybe he had many phones, on the last count I believe RTP identified 3 iphones at different times all belonging to David but still only one IMEI

You believe wrong.

[AleG]

The police had the phone, it was confirmed to be David's phone by Mr Ware. I doubt the B2 stole it from the police, so if it (that same phone) ended up in the bushes in a bag, it was the police that put it there.

What is more likely that one of the B2 ( I get the names mixed up) by some weird coincidence also found a phone in vicinity of the crime (it's a beach people get drunk and lose phones all the time I am sure). He took the phone home, and found out it was knackered. And then later when they realized that it might connect them to the crime, they tried to destroy and realizing the difficulty of that just put the whole thing in a bag and tossed it.

Then as the scapegoat hunt was in full swing. One of the police found that phone and the decided that this was the perfect evidence for a frame-up. All they had to do was say that this was David's phone, and pretend that the cataloguing and confirming the other phone was David's never happened. How many times do the police contradict previous discoveries and statements. Seems like it is SOP. So nothing new here, except for the international exposure.

"The police had the phone, it was confirmed to be David's phone by Mr Ware."

No, that's what the completely useless "Internet Sleuths" came up with to try to explain reality away. They have no clue what they are talking about.

"I doubt the B2 stole it from the police, so if it (that same phone) ended up in the bushes in a bag, it was the police that put it there."

Except that both Wei Phyo and his friend Ren Ren have already testified how that phone ended up there on the morning after the murders. It's just amazing how some people keep throwing BS on the face of established facts.

This is Wei Phyo's own testimony on the final days of the trial, obviously he had every motivation to spin things as much in favour as he could and still he is not denying that he handed that phone to his friend who then threw it away were it was subsequently found:

"At about 8 am, the Second Defendant showed Mr Ren Ren the mobile phone he had retrieved and told him that he had found it at the restaurant. The Second Defendant tried to turn the mobile phone on but he could not because he did not have the passcode. Then, he left the mobile phone to be recharged at Mr Ren Ren’s house. After the murder news in Koh Tao spread, the Second Defendant told the truth to Mr Ren Ren that he found the mobile phone near where the incident had happened. Then, the Second Defendant slept over at the First Defendant’s house and returned to Mr Ren Ren’s house again to ask about the phone. Mr Ren Ren said he had smashed and destroyed the phone and thrown it away because he did not want to be implicated in the crime. The Second Defendant was disinterested and did not ask further."

Not clear enough?

"Apart from this, the Plaintiff also has circumstantial witnesses to the aftermath of the crime, namely Mr Aung Li Zaw or Ren Ren and Mr Ni Ni Aung, friends of the Second Defendant who have testified that the Second Defendant was the one to bring the exhibited (my note here: exhibited phone refers to the one presented as evidence, the one recovered by the police behind their lodgings) mobile phone which was the same brand and model as that of the First Deceased on the 15 September 2014 which was the day that the crime took place and only a few hours after the incident. Neither of these witnesses for the Plaintiff had any reason to be biased against the Second Defendant that would have caused them to incriminate the Second Defendant. Plaintiff also presented evidence relating to the examination of the exhibited mobile phone that can prove that the identification number of the mobile phone was definitely the number of the mobile phone of the First Deceased. In the course of the Second Defendant’s witness examination there is no supporting evidence to refute this fact.

Furthermore there is corroborating testimony that the Second Defendant did in fact take the mobile phone to Mr Ren Ren, witness for the Plaintiff, but the Second Defendant merely argued that the the phone was found on the ground on the way to Mr Mau Mau’s house and that the Second Defendant merely wanted to show it off to his friend."

The phone used as evidence is David Miller's phone, which Wei Phyo says he "found" on the night of the murder, it's indisputable; the suspect confirmed it's the same phone he "found" on that night, his friend confirmed it, the UK NCA and the Miller family confirmed it was David's phone, this is all indisputable.

The only thing being demonstrated by trying to dispute the indisputable is to what lengths of denial and deception the people that want to believe they weren't wrong in believing those two men committed the murders are willing to go.

[StealthEnergiser]

According to AleG, Chris Ware or someone else left it in David's bag . Like you do. A 30,000 Baht iphone's just a disposable item like an empty box of matches or snack wrapper, isn't it?

maybe he had many phones, on the last count I believe RTP identified 3 iphones at different times all belonging to David but still only one IMEI

You believe wrong.

Yes you are 100 percent correct smedly , this is just another piece of the puzzle that the rtp supporters want to push under the carpet.

Mon being on the crime seem for almost 1 hour including advising people to move murder weapons before a call was made to police Lieutenant Jakkapan Kaewkao is very suspicious he should have been called immediately to a double murder.

After arriving at the crime scene around 5.40am O admitted removing the hoe from next to the tree and taking it back to a vegetable garden inside the resort where he worked.

Around half an hour later he said he was approached by the resort's boss and a policeman who told him to put on a pair of gloves and return it to the scene, which he did.

http://www.channelne...ed/1972132.html

Edited February 21, 2016 by StealthEnergiser

[stephenterry]

Trouble is, there wasn't any DNA evidence. Oh, unless you believe the RTP's claim that there was. Hey, it was all written down on a piece of paper, with alterations and crossing outs. Must be true.

I refer you to Smedly's posts (including the rationale not acceptable by the defence) where he quite clearly states what evidence should have been presented to court to make it admissible. And had the B2 been guilty, I have no doubt the RTP would have provided such evidence that could be verified, substantiated, and validated. As it was not, I have little doubt that the B2 were not the culprits, but convenient scapegoats.

I have my own theories regarding what was not questioned by the defence, but as that goes into Thai psyche, and beyond, this is not the forum to discuss such matters.

There is evidence its in the rape kit that the defense declined to retest.

Evidence??? I repeat. READ Smedly's posts where the DNA profile offered by the prosecution was not acceptable. Stop trying to mislead yet again - it's all been explained many times. I'll give you a clue. The offer was not the original samples (if they ever existed, which is debatable) - do you get it now?

Like yourself, neither the court, prosecution, or defence understood what DNA evidence is acceptable by any court of law. Face-saving comes into play, here. Hopefully, the defence appeal (assisted by international DNA experts) will enlighten the appeal judges, although I doubt it would enlighten you..

[lucky11]

The police had the phone, it was confirmed to be David's phone by Mr Ware. I doubt the B2 stole it from the police, so if it (that same phone) ended up in the bushes in a bag, it was the police that put it there.

What is more likely that one of the B2 ( I get the names mixed up) by some weird coincidence also found a phone in vicinity of the crime (it's a beach people get drunk and lose phones all the time I am sure). He took the phone home, and found out it was knackered. And then later when they realized that it might connect them to the crime, they tried to destroy and realizing the difficulty of that just put the whole thing in a bag and tossed it.

Then as the scapegoat hunt was in full swing. One of the police found that phone and the decided that this was the perfect evidence for a frame-up. All they had to do was say that this was David's phone, and pretend that the cataloguing and confirming the other phone was David's never happened. How many times do the police contradict previous discoveries and statements. Seems like it is SOP. So nothing new here, except for the international exposure.

"The police had the phone, it was confirmed to be David's phone by Mr Ware."

No, that's what the completely useless "Internet Sleuths" came up with to try to explain reality away. They have no clue what they are talking about.

"I doubt the B2 stole it from the police, so if it (that same phone) ended up in the bushes in a bag, it was the police that put it there."

Except that both Wei Phyo and his friend Ren Ren have already testified how that phone ended up there on the morning after the murders. It's just amazing how some people keep throwing BS on the face of established facts.

This is Wei Phyo's own testimony on the final days of the trial, obviously he had every motivation to spin things as much in favour as he could and still he is not denying that he handed that phone to his friend who then threw it away were it was subsequently found:

"At about 8 am, the Second Defendant showed Mr Ren Ren the mobile phone he had retrieved and told him that he had found it at the restaurant. The Second Defendant tried to turn the mobile phone on but he could not because he did not have the passcode. Then, he left the mobile phone to be recharged at Mr Ren Ren’s house. After the murder news in Koh Tao spread, the Second Defendant told the truth to Mr Ren Ren that he found the mobile phone near where the incident had happened. Then, the Second Defendant slept over at the First Defendant’s house and returned to Mr Ren Ren’s house again to ask about the phone. Mr Ren Ren said he had smashed and destroyed the phone and thrown it away because he did not want to be implicated in the crime. The Second Defendant was disinterested and did not ask further."

Not clear enough?

"Apart from this, the Plaintiff also has circumstantial witnesses to the aftermath of the crime, namely Mr Aung Li Zaw or Ren Ren and Mr Ni Ni Aung, friends of the Second Defendant who have testified that the Second Defendant was the one to bring the exhibited (my note here: exhibited phone refers to the one presented as evidence, the one recovered by the police behind their lodgings) mobile phone which was the same brand and model as that of the First Deceased on the 15 September 2014 which was the day that the crime took place and only a few hours after the incident. Neither of these witnesses for the Plaintiff had any reason to be biased against the Second Defendant that would have caused them to incriminate the Second Defendant. Plaintiff also presented evidence relating to the examination of the exhibited mobile phone that can prove that the identification number of the mobile phone was definitely the number of the mobile phone of the First Deceased. In the course of the Second Defendant’s witness examination there is no supporting evidence to refute this fact.

Furthermore there is corroborating testimony that the Second Defendant did in fact take the mobile phone to Mr Ren Ren, witness for the Plaintiff, but the Second Defendant merely argued that the the phone was found on the ground on the way to Mr Mau Mau’s house and that the Second Defendant merely wanted to show it off to his friend."

The phone used as evidence is David Miller's phone, which Wei Phyo says he "found" on the night of the murder, it's indisputable; the suspect confirmed it's the same phone he "found" on that night, his friend confirmed it, the UK NCA and the Miller family confirmed it was David's phone, this is all indisputable.

The only thing being demonstrated by trying to dispute the indisputable is to what lengths of denial and deception the people that want to believe they weren't wrong in believing those two men committed the murders are willing to go.

You have rather eloquently proved this point beyond all doubt now AleG, so can we forget all this nonsense about it being 3G, 4G, an iphone, Samsung, with protruding buttons on the side, the number, size and shape of the buttons, whether it has a metal rim or not, or rounded edges and any other identity factors that are simply red herring material!! It was Davids phone found on the beach by one of the B2 in the early hours of the morning (admitted), only to be smashed and abandoned (rather carelessly) by his friend once he caught wind of what had happened the night before (admitted).

Why don't you stop looking for excuses and pretending to be super sleuths in surfing through pics of mobiles in order to attempt to identify the mobile in question and give us a sensible and believable explanation as to how they became in possession of David's phone on the day he was murdered and in the highly suspicious and irrational behaviour regarding Ren Ren's panic-stricken disposal of the deceased's phone once news of the double murder emerged and he caught wind of it - unless of course he realised beforehand who's phone it was and got rid of it before it became common knowledge among those such as the police and those in the vicinity ie: those NOT INVOLVED!!

[DiscoDan]

Trouble is, there wasn't any DNA evidence. Oh, unless you believe the RTP's claim that there was. Hey, it was all written down on a piece of paper, with alterations and crossing outs. Must be true.

I refer you to Smedly's posts (including the rationale not acceptable by the defence) where he quite clearly states what evidence should have been presented to court to make it admissible. And had the B2 been guilty, I have no doubt the RTP would have provided such evidence that could be verified, substantiated, and validated. As it was not, I have little doubt that the B2 were not the culprits, but convenient scapegoats.

I have my own theories regarding what was not questioned by the defence, but as that goes into Thai psyche, and beyond, this is not the forum to discuss such matters.

There is evidence its in the rape kit that the defense declined to retest.

Evidence??? I repeat. READ Smedly's posts where the DNA profile offered by the prosecution was not acceptable. Stop trying to mislead yet again - it's all been explained many times. I'll give you a clue. The offer was not the original samples (if they ever existed, which is debatable) - do you get it now?

Like yourself, neither the court, prosecution, or defence understood what DNA evidence is acceptable by any court of law. Face-saving comes into play, here. Hopefully, the defence appeal (assisted by international DNA experts) will enlighten the appeal judges, although I doubt it would enlighten you..

Sorry but I don't ever remember the defense asking to test original mixed sample after turning down the rape kit maybe you or Smedley could provide a link as proof ?

[lucky11]

Trouble is, there wasn't any DNA evidence. Oh, unless you believe the RTP's claim that there was. Hey, it was all written down on a piece of paper, with alterations and crossing outs. Must be true.

I refer you to Smedly's posts (including the rationale not acceptable by the defence) where he quite clearly states what evidence should have been presented to court to make it admissible. And had the B2 been guilty, I have no doubt the RTP would have provided such evidence that could be verified, substantiated, and validated. As it was not, I have little doubt that the B2 were not the culprits, but convenient scapegoats.

I have my own theories regarding what was not questioned by the defence, but as that goes into Thai psyche, and beyond, this is not the forum to discuss such matters.

There is evidence its in the rape kit that the defense declined to retest.

Evidence??? I repeat. READ Smedly's posts where the DNA profile offered by the prosecution was not acceptable. Stop trying to mislead yet again - it's all been explained many times. I'll give you a clue. The offer was not the original samples (if they ever existed, which is debatable) - do you get it now?

Like yourself, neither the court, prosecution, or defence understood what DNA evidence is acceptable by any court of law. Face-saving comes into play, here. Hopefully, the defence appeal (assisted by international DNA experts) will enlighten the appeal judges, although I doubt it would enlighten you..

It was acceptable to the presiding judge and that my friend, is all that matters EOS!!

[stephenterry]

Trouble is, there wasn't any DNA evidence. Oh, unless you believe the RTP's claim that there was. Hey, it was all written down on a piece of paper, with alterations and crossing outs. Must be true.

I refer you to Smedly's posts (including the rationale not acceptable by the defence) where he quite clearly states what evidence should have been presented to court to make it admissible. And had the B2 been guilty, I have no doubt the RTP would have provided such evidence that could be verified, substantiated, and validated. As it was not, I have little doubt that the B2 were not the culprits, but convenient scapegoats.

I have my own theories regarding what was not questioned by the defence, but as that goes into Thai psyche, and beyond, this is not the forum to discuss such matters.

There is evidence its in the rape kit that the defense declined to retest.

Evidence??? I repeat. READ Smedly's posts where the DNA profile offered by the prosecution was not acceptable. Stop trying to mislead yet again - it's all been explained many times. I'll give you a clue. The offer was not the original samples (if they ever existed, which is debatable) - do you get it now?

Like yourself, neither the court, prosecution, or defence understood what DNA evidence is acceptable by any court of law. Face-saving comes into play, here. Hopefully, the defence appeal (assisted by international DNA experts) will enlighten the appeal judges, although I doubt it would enlighten you..

Sorry but I don't ever remember the defense asking to test original mixed sample after turning down the rape kit maybe you or Smedley could provide a link as proof ?

The defence had been requesting these samples since April last year, (confirmed by the judge at the July hearing) but the RTP declined to produce anything despite a court order that the defence should be permitted to test them. And if you think I'm going to plow back countless posts to satisfy your ignorance, you're mistaken. So do the search your self, Tony, instead of making spurious and inaccurate comments.

[stephenterry]

Trouble is, there wasn't any DNA evidence. Oh, unless you believe the RTP's claim that there was. Hey, it was all written down on a piece of paper, with alterations and crossing outs. Must be true.

I refer you to Smedly's posts (including the rationale not acceptable by the defence) where he quite clearly states what evidence should have been presented to court to make it admissible. And had the B2 been guilty, I have no doubt the RTP would have provided such evidence that could be verified, substantiated, and validated. As it was not, I have little doubt that the B2 were not the culprits, but convenient scapegoats.

I have my own theories regarding what was not questioned by the defence, but as that goes into Thai psyche, and beyond, this is not the forum to discuss such matters.

There is evidence its in the rape kit that the defense declined to retest.

Evidence??? I repeat. READ Smedly's posts where the DNA profile offered by the prosecution was not acceptable. Stop trying to mislead yet again - it's all been explained many times. I'll give you a clue. The offer was not the original samples (if they ever existed, which is debatable) - do you get it now?

Like yourself, neither the court, prosecution, or defence understood what DNA evidence is acceptable by any court of law. Face-saving comes into play, here. Hopefully, the defence appeal (assisted by international DNA experts) will enlighten the appeal judges, although I doubt it would enlighten you..

It was acceptable to the presiding judge and that my friend, is all that matters EOS!!

And that is why the defence is taking the case to the Appeals court, because they consider the Samui court verdict to be incorrect. So, it is not all that matters. And in fact, it could be a long time before the case is resolved, if at all. Anyway, go and hassle someone else, you're boring.

[DiscoDan]

Sorry but I don't ever remember the defense asking to test original mixed sample after turning down the rape kit maybe you or Smedley could provide a link as proof ?

The defence had been requesting these samples since April last year, (confirmed by the judge at the July hearing) but the RTP declined to produce anything despite a court order that the defence should be permitted to test them. And if you think I'm going to plow back countless posts to satisfy your ignorance, you're mistaken. So do the search your self, Tony, instead of making spurious and inaccurate comments.

link ? mentioning request or refusal of original mixed samples.

Then we can see who is making spurious and inaccurate comments.

[DiscoDan]

Another lie that was told was the blonde hair was never tested.

Robert Holmes confirmed it was tested but it was a fallen hair to get a dna sample it has to be pulled out, and as Hannah's UK autopsy showed no sign of resistance this would of confirmed it was unlikely someone pulled it out in the attack.

[lucky11]

Another lie that was told was the blonde hair was never tested.

Robert Holmes confirmed it was tested but it was a fallen hair to get a dna sample it has to be pulled out, and as Hannah's UK autopsy showed no sign of resistance this would of confirmed it was unlikely someone pulled it out in the attack.

Yet another example of their long list being shown to be false!!

Edited February 21, 2016 by lucky11

[JLCrab]

To the overly nested post above about the Defense getting ready to submit an Appeal:

I remember after the OJ Simpson verdict was announced, that a top LA Police rep was asked, now the OJ had been acquitted, are they going to go after the 'real killer'? The officer flatly replied: "No - we got our man."

So if it should transpire that the Appeals Court reached a decision to reverse the Samui Court's guilty verdict, the Court might also strongly state that they were not making any decision as to whether the 2 Burmese convicted actually did or were accessories to the crimes, just that the Prosecution had not provided proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to their guilt.

The RTP Thai Police might at that point say, as did the LA Police, that we don't agree with that decision, but we believe we have found the real killers and that no further investigation is warranted or will be performed to find others that might be responsible.

[Chetzee]

DiscoDan, on 20 Feb 2016 - 17:14, said:

I don't understand why people are still going on about the phone WP admits to finding it and giving it to a friend.

The friend has testified that WP told him he found it in a bar that then later changed to found it on the beach then he thought it might be connected to the murders and smashed it up, instead of handing it in to the police. (because thats what innocent people do)

And this is their version of events not the prosecutions

Wei Phyo did not smash up and dispose of the phone himself, his friend Ren Ren did it.

Why did it get passed on to hid friend you may ask, I'll tell you why........because hot potatoes are just that, and this was a very, very hot potato, as Wei clearly knew (somehow)!!

yea ... coz when you've go a hot potato that's going to explode , you'd give it to your mate in the same lodgings wouldn't you !!? So that when it did go off you're mate just says .... look, HE gave it to me !

Now You might feel that the Burmese are and underclass of dim individuals , but that says more about you than them !

[greenchair]

jayjay78, on 20 Feb 2016 - 16:02, said:

catsanddogs, on 20 Feb 2016 - 15:53, said:

jayjay78, on 20 Feb 2016 - 15:45, said:

Ok found another and this is the caption that goes with it

"This is David'd iPhone. According to the police Mr. Win stole it, smashed it and threw it to the jungle behind Mr. Mao Mao's resident.

If you observe this iPhone carefully, it looks like somebody tried to open the screen rather than smashing it. It also looks like somebody put this phone under the water or suffer from water damage."

What was the date police allegedly found the phone behind the lodgings please?

The same day they arrested Win, supposedly it was laying in the bushes since the 15th Sept. Whats that, 2 weeks undiscovered.........or put it another way 2 weeks where it could have been disposed of properly.

In addition, according to your post above, the phone was found behind Maung Maung's accommodation, which was reported to be behind the AC2 resort (MM worked at the AC2 bar) on Sairee Beach. In that case why were the British police taken to a location at Mae Haad (the clock tower) which is some distance away?

Wouldn't really matter where you take the Met Police. They had their orders and it wasn't to do due diligence! I've learned one hell of a lot about the reality of political shenanigans and the priorities of politicians. A murky world indeed, regardless of where in the world you are from.

The reason the phone was discovered on the day wei phyo was arrested,is because in the original confession Wei Phyo told the rtp that he had stolen the sunglasses and the phone. It was Wei Phyo that told the police where the phone was. If he had not, it most likely would never have been discovered. As far as I know the sunglasses were never found. The story of the sunglasses was from Wei Phyo.
After he recanted his confession (yes yes because he was tortured ) he changed his story to he found it on the beach.
He dug the hole himself and you are all trying to dig him out of it. Good luck lol.

[Khun Han]

It's been pretty much confirmed that serous discrepancies in the phone evidence have been unearthed in these recent discussions, by the sudden, sustained onslaught of misdirection by the shills, including daft attempts to provoke argument about all sorts of other things. The shills need a new team leader: their tactics are transparent. Anyway, good to have them confirm that those of us seeking truth and justice are on the right track.

[lucky11]

DiscoDan, on 20 Feb 2016 - 17:14, said:

I don't understand why people are still going on about the phone WP admits to finding it and giving it to a friend.

The friend has testified that WP told him he found it in a bar that then later changed to found it on the beach then he thought it might be connected to the murders and smashed it up, instead of handing it in to the police. (because thats what innocent people do)

And this is their version of events not the prosecutions

Wei Phyo did not smash up and dispose of the phone himself, his friend Ren Ren did it.

Why did it get passed on to hid friend you may ask, I'll tell you why........because hot potatoes are just that, and this was a very, very hot potato, as Wei clearly knew (somehow)!!

yea ... coz when you've go a hot potato that's going to explode , you'd give it to your mate in the same lodgings wouldn't you !!? So that when it did go off you're mate just says .... look, HE gave it to me !

Now You might feel that the Burmese are and underclass of dim individuals , but that says more about you than them !

'underclass of dim individuals'?

Where did I intimate this? What they did was not clever, I can agree on that one.

[greenchair]

Trouble is, there wasn't any DNA evidence. Oh, unless you believe the RTP's claim that there was. Hey, it was all written down on a piece of paper, with alterations and crossing outs. Must be true.

I refer you to Smedly's posts (including the rationale not acceptable by the defence) where he quite clearly states what evidence should have been presented to court to make it admissible. And had the B2 been guilty, I have no doubt the RTP would have provided such evidence that could be verified, substantiated, and validated. As it was not, I have little doubt that the B2 were not the culprits, but convenient scapegoats.

I have my own theories regarding what was not questioned by the defence, but as that goes into Thai psyche, and beyond, this is not the forum to discuss such matters.

There is evidence its in the rape kit that the defense declined to retest.

Evidence??? I repeat. READ Smedly's posts where the DNA profile offered by the prosecution was not acceptable. Stop trying to mislead yet again - it's all been explained many times. I'll give you a clue. The offer was not the original samples (if they ever existed, which is debatable) - do you get it now?

Like yourself, neither the court, prosecution, or defence understood what DNA evidence is acceptable by any court of law. Face-saving comes into play, here. Hopefully, the defence appeal (assisted by international DNA experts) will enlighten the appeal judges, although I doubt it would enlighten you..

Sorry but I don't ever remember the defense asking to test original mixed sample after turning down the rape kit maybe you or Smedley could provide a link as proof ?

The defence had been requesting these samples since April last year, (confirmed by the judge at the July hearing) but the RTP declined to produce anything despite a court order that the defence should be permitted to test them. And if you think I'm going to plow back countless posts to satisfy your ignorance, you're mistaken. So do the search your self, Tony, instead of making spurious and inaccurate comments.

Yes, the defence did ask to retest everything including the hoe. After their own expert witness found a 25 % match to Wei Phyo , they knew damn well not to test anything else. So they then changed their tactics to the dna is fake , but we will find every excuse under the sun as to why we cannot retest it.
"Because we already know what it will show ". So rather than discredit the dna (which we will lose) we will go back to the rtp are rotters, which will garner more public support, which will garner more public funds.

[AGareth2]

why did they smash the phone?

if it didn't work why not just throw it in the sea

why the back of your abode?

they had weeks to dispose of it

[lucky11]

It's been pretty much confirmed that serous discrepancies in the phone evidence have been unearthed in these recent discussions, by the sudden, sustained onslaught of misdirection by the shills, including daft attempts to provoke argument about all sorts of other things. The shills need a new team leader: their tactics are transparent. Anyway, good to have them confirm that those of us seeking truth and justice are on the right track.

So facts and admissions of guilt (not under duress) are misdirection?

That is the most unconvincing account of events I have seen on here for a long time.

It might put you on the right track, but hey!!, someone should tell you that you are going in the wrong direction.

[lucky11]

why did they smash the phone?

if it didn't work why not just throw it in the sea

why the back of your abode?

they had weeks to dispose of it

Yes!! Why?

[Lancashireman]

why did they smash the phone?

if it didn't work why not just throw it in the sea

why the back of your abode?

they had weeks to dispose of it

Yes!! Why?

Quite probably a planted piece of evidence to shore up the argument. I still maintain the two young men are involved, but are carrying the can for all.

[Chetzee]

claim and counter claim over the phone , likewise the DNA , and yet Nomsod and his family remain in the frame for the majority of ppl here . Go figure . Must be quite frustrating

[Khun Han]

The police had the phone, it was confirmed to be David's phone by Mr Ware. I doubt the B2 stole it from the police, so if it (that same phone) ended up in the bushes in a bag, it was the police that put it there.

What is more likely that one of the B2 ( I get the names mixed up) by some weird coincidence also found a phone in vicinity of the crime (it's a beach people get drunk and lose phones all the time I am sure). He took the phone home, and found out it was knackered. And then later when they realized that it might connect them to the crime, they tried to destroy and realizing the difficulty of that just put the whole thing in a bag and tossed it.

Then as the scapegoat hunt was in full swing. One of the police found that phone and the decided that this was the perfect evidence for a frame-up. All they had to do was say that this was David's phone, and pretend that the cataloguing and confirming the other phone was David's never happened. How many times do the police contradict previous discoveries and statements. Seems like it is SOP. So nothing new here, except for the international exposure.

"The police had the phone, it was confirmed to be David's phone by Mr Ware."

No, that's what the completely useless "Internet Sleuths" came up with to try to explain reality away. They have no clue what they are talking about.

"I doubt the B2 stole it from the police, so if it (that same phone) ended up in the bushes in a bag, it was the police that put it there."

Except that both Wei Phyo and his friend Ren Ren have already testified how that phone ended up there on the morning after the murders. It's just amazing how some people keep throwing BS on the face of established facts.

This is Wei Phyo's own testimony on the final days of the trial, obviously he had every motivation to spin things as much in favour as he could and still he is not denying that he handed that phone to his friend who then threw it away were it was subsequently found:

"At about 8 am, the Second Defendant showed Mr Ren Ren the mobile phone he had retrieved and told him that he had found it at the restaurant. The Second Defendant tried to turn the mobile phone on but he could not because he did not have the passcode. Then, he left the mobile phone to be recharged at Mr Ren Rens house. After the murder news in Koh Tao spread, the Second Defendant told the truth to Mr Ren Ren that he found the mobile phone near where the incident had happened. Then, the Second Defendant slept over at the First Defendants house and returned to Mr Ren Rens house again to ask about the phone. Mr Ren Ren said he had smashed and destroyed the phone and thrown it away because he did not want to be implicated in the crime. The Second Defendant was disinterested and did not ask further."

Not clear enough?

"Apart from this, the Plaintiff also has circumstantial witnesses to the aftermath of the crime, namely Mr Aung Li Zaw or Ren Ren and Mr Ni Ni Aung, friends of the Second Defendant who have testified that the Second Defendant was the one to bring the exhibited (my note here: exhibited phone refers to the one presented as evidence, the one recovered by the police behind their lodgings) mobile phone which was the same brand and model as that of the First Deceased on the 15 September 2014 which was the day that the crime took place and only a few hours after the incident. Neither of these witnesses for the Plaintiff had any reason to be biased against the Second Defendant that would have caused them to incriminate the Second Defendant. Plaintiff also presented evidence relating to the examination of the exhibited mobile phone that can prove that the identification number of the mobile phone was definitely the number of the mobile phone of the First Deceased. In the course of the Second Defendants witness examination there is no supporting evidence to refute this fact.

Furthermore there is corroborating testimony that the Second Defendant did in fact take the mobile phone to Mr Ren Ren, witness for the Plaintiff, but the Second Defendant merely argued that the the phone was found on the ground on the way to Mr Mau Maus house and that the Second Defendant merely wanted to show it off to his friend."

The phone used as evidence is David Miller's phone, which Wei Phyo says he "found" on the night of the murder, it's indisputable; the suspect confirmed it's the same phone he "found" on that night, his friend confirmed it, the UK NCA and the Miller family confirmed it was David's phone, this is all indisputable.

The only thing being demonstrated by trying to dispute the indisputable is to what lengths of denial and deception the people that want to believe they weren't wrong in believing those two men committed the murders are willing to go.

I'm not sure what this verbose pile of garbage is supposed to 'prove', other than that Wei Phyo found a phone that he gave to a friend, and that the RTP presented a phone in court that they said was David's and the one that Wei Phyo found. Hmmm.....apart from the obvious: the RTP were prone to telling lots of lies in court.....the phone that RTP forensics recovered from the trees doesn't look anything like an iphone 4s (the model that David owned, and the model of phone that was found in David's bag). But it does look exactly like an iphone 3G. It's pretty obvious that the RTP have been swapping phone evidence about.

[Lancashireman]

claim and counter claim over the phone , likewise the DNA , and yet Nomsod and his family remain in the frame for the majority of ppl here . Go figure . Must be quite frustrating

Quite possibly, but without incriminating evidence...yes, quite frustrating.

I think the 'entente' on the beach was witnessed by the two young convicted men, possibly including themselves to free deserts....the rest was easy. Probables exempted, possibles inserted, cash for secrets sorted, job done...

The court, at the moment, holds all the aces...

...go figure!

[DiscoDan]

It's been pretty much confirmed that serous discrepancies in the phone evidence have been unearthed in these recent discussions, by the sudden, sustained onslaught of misdirection by the shills, including daft attempts to provoke argument about all sorts of other things. The shills need a new team leader: their tactics are transparent. Anyway, good to have them confirm that those of us seeking truth and justice are on the right track.

You have not found anything WP & RR admitted along time ago the phone in the bag was the one they found Brit evidence could not be used so Miller family gave the evidence from Davids computer.

P.S petty name calling just shows you are losing the argument

[DiscoDan]

Another lie the truthers told was cctv at the pier was not checked , yet in court Pol Col Ruangtong told the court police had indeed checked the cctv images from the cameras at the port but they had not shown anything.

And yet they have still have the front to call us shills.